H. Rept. 115-514 - SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT115th Congress (2017-2018)
Committee Report
Hide Overview| Report Type: | House Report |
|---|---|
| Accompanies: | H.R.1119 |
| Committees: |
Report text available as:
- TXT
- PDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-514
======================================================================
SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT
_______
January 12, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Walden, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1119]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1119) to establish the bases by which the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
issue, implement, and enforce certain emission limitations and
allocations for existing electric utility steam generating
units that convert coal refuse into energy, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 3
Committee Action................................................. 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Oversight Findings and Recommendations........................... 7
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 7
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 7
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 8
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 8
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 8
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 8
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits....... 8
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 8
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Dissenting Views................................................. 10
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the
Environment Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.
SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR COAL REFUSE POWER PLANTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Boiler operating day.--The term ``boiler operating day''
has the meaning given such term in section 63.10042 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
(3) Coal refuse.--The term ``coal refuse'' means any
byproduct of coal mining, physical coal cleaning, or coal
preparation operation that contains coal, matrix material,
clay, and other organic and inorganic material.
(4) Coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit.--The
term ``coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit''
means an electric utility steam generating unit that--
(A) is in operation as of the date of enactment of
this Act;
(B) uses fluidized bed combustion technology to
convert coal refuse into energy; and
(C) uses coal refuse as at least 75 percent of the
annual fuel consumed, by heat input, of the unit.
(5) Coal refuse-fired facility.--The term ``coal refuse-fired
facility'' means all coal refuse electric utility steam
generating units that are--
(A) located on one or more contiguous or adjacent
properties;
(B) specified within the same Major Group (2-digit
code), as described in the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual (1987); and
(C) under common control of the same person (or
persons under common control).
(6) Electric utility steam generating unit.--The term
``electric utility steam generating unit'' means an electric
utility steam generating unit, as such term is defined in
section 63.10042 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor regulation.
(b) Emission Limitations To Address Hydrogen Chloride and Sulfur
Dioxide as Hazardous Air Pollutants.--
(1) Applicability.--For purposes of regulating emissions of
hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide from a coal refuse electric
utility steam generating unit under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412), the Administrator--
(A) shall authorize the operator of such unit to
elect that such unit comply with either--
(i) an emissions standard for emissions of
hydrogen chloride that meets the requirements
of paragraph (2); or
(ii) an emission standard for emissions of
sulfur dioxide that meets the requirements of
paragraph (2); and
(B) may not require that such unit comply with both
an emission standard for emissions of hydrogen chloride
and an emission standard for emissions of sulfur
dioxide.
(2) Rules for emission limitations.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall require an
operator of a coal refuse electric utility steam
generating unit to comply, at the election of the
operator, with no more than one of the following
emission standards:
(i) An emission standard for emissions of
hydrogen chloride from such unit that is no
more stringent than an emission rate of 0.002
pounds per million British thermal units of
heat input.
(ii) An emission standard for emissions of
hydrogen chloride from such unit that is no
more stringent than an emission rate of 0.02
pounds per megawatt-hour.
(iii) An emission standard for emissions of
sulfur dioxide from such unit that is no more
stringent than an emission rate of 0.20 pounds
per million British thermal units of heat
input.
(iv) An emission standard for emissions of
sulfur dioxide from such unit that is no more
stringent than an emission rate of 1.5 pounds
per megawatt-hour.
(v) An emission standard for emissions of
sulfur dioxide from such unit that is no more
stringent than capture and control of 93
percent of sulfur dioxide across the generating
unit or group of generating units, as
determined by comparing--
(I) the expected sulfur dioxide
generated from combustion of fuels
emissions calculated based upon as-
fired fuel samples, to
(II) the actual sulfur dioxide
emissions as measured by a sulfur
dioxide continuous emission monitoring
system.
(B) Measurement.--An emission standard described in
subparagraph (A) shall be measured as a 30 boiler
operating day rolling average per coal refuse electric
utility steam generating unit or group of coal refuse
electric utility steam generating units located at a
single coal refuse-fired facility.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to establish the bases by which the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and
enforce certain emission limitations for existing electric
utility steam generating units that convert coal refuse into
energy.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 1119, Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the
Environment (SENSE) Act, was introduced by Representative Keith
Rothfus (R-PA) on February 16, 2017. The legislation addresses
the application of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA),
issued pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, to
electric generating units that utilize coal refuse to generate
electricity and serve critical environmental cleanup and
remediation purposes. The bill would provide for limited
modifications with respect to the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule
for these coal refuse facilities by providing for alternative
compliance options with respect to sulfur dioxide and hydrogen
chloride emissions standards.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
This legislation seeks to ensure that innovative,
environmentally beneficial facilities that use coal refuse as
fuel can continue to operate and will not be forced to shut
down, due to unachievable requirements included in the
Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\On February 16, 2012, EPA finalized the MATS rule. This rule was
promulgated pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act and requires
reductions in emissions of mercury and other air toxics, as well as
certain acid gases from power plants. On June 29, 2015, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that EPA erred when the agency concluded that costs
did not need to be considered in the MATS rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal refuse is the aboveground waste product of coal mining
found near many abandoned mines. Coal refuse piles pose a
number of environmental and safety threats and create
significant costs for government and industry. Coal refuse-to-
energy facilities are specialized power plants developed to
recycle the coal refuse by using it as an energy source to
generate affordable, reliable electricity. There are 19 coal
refuse-to-energy facilities, including 14 in Pennsylvania.\2\
In addition to creating an estimated 3,600 jobs, many of which
are in economically distressed communities, these facilities
create an average of $26 million per year in environmental
value for the State of Pennsylvania alone.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Econsult Solutions report prepared for the Anthracite Region
Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA), Economic and
Environmental Analysis of Pennsylvania's Coal Refuse Industry (2016).
In Pennsylvania, coal refuse-to-energy facilities are recognized in the
Pennsylvania Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act.
\3\See written testimony of Vincent Brisini, Director of
Environmental Affairs for Olympus Power, LLC, testifying on behalf of
ARIPPA, at September 2017 Energy Subcommittee hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some have suggested that coal refuse-to-energy facilities
can meet the requirements of the MATS rule, citing the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in White Stallion v.
Environmental Protection Agency.\4\ In that case, the agency
had the authority to create a separate subcategory for coal
refuse plants, but declined to do so in part because there were
some such plants that could achieve the HCL and SO2 standards
in the MATS rule. Notwithstanding the court's holding that EPA
had acted within its discretion, Mr. Vincent Brisini testified
earlier this year on behalf of the Anthracite Region
Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA) at the
Subcommittee on Energy's September 13, 2017 hearing that a
number of bituminous coal refuse fired units cannot meet the
MATS rule's acid gas limits and face a threat of imminent
closure absent passage of H.R. 1119.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. Environmental
Protection Agency, Case No. 12-1100, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (April 15, 2014).
\5\See written testimony of Vincent Brisini, Director of
Environmental Affairs for Olympus Power, LLC, testifying on behalf of
ARIPPA, at September 2017 Energy Subcommittee hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the extraordinary environmental benefits of these
facilities, the EPA has included certain emissions limits in
the MATS regulations that are not achievable for all coal
refuse-to-energy plants. If these facilities shut down, the
communities served by them will lose the electricity, jobs, and
environmental cleanup provided by these coal refuse-to-energy
plants.
What the Legislation Would Do
The bill includes limited provisions that would allow these
innovative coal refuse-to-energy facilities to generate
affordable, reliable energy and continue their essential
environmental remediation work in a responsible manner.
Specifically, the bill would, with respect to MATS, create
an alternative means of demonstrating compliance with the
hydrochloric acid (HCl) standard by using SO2 as a proxy and
assuming that a 93 percent reduction in SO2 demonstrates
compliance with the HCl standard.
COMMITTEE ACTION
On September 13, 2017, the Subcommittee on Environment held
a hearing on H.R. 1119. The Subcommittee received testimony
from:
Ryan Parker, President and CEO, Endicott
Clay Products;
Vincent Brisini, Director of Environmental
Affairs, Olympus Power, LLC, on behalf of Anthracite
Region Independent Power Producers Association
(ARIPPA);
Frank Moore, President, Hardy Manufacturing
Company, Inc.;
Steve Page, President and General Manager,
Sonoma Raceway;
Alexandra E. Teitz, Principal, AT
Strategies, LLC, on behalf of Sierra Club; and
Rebecca Bascom, Professor, Penn State
College of Medicine, on behalf of American Thoracic
Society.
On November 15, 2017, the Subcommittee on Environment met
in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 1119, as amended, to
the full Committee by a record vote of 13 yeas and 10 nays. On
December 6, 2017, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1119, as amended,
favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 31 yeas and
23 nays.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during
the Committee consideration:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that
are reflected in this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee
finds that H.R. 1119 would result in no new or increased budget
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, the following is
the cost estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2018.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1119, the
Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1119--Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act
H.R. 1119 would require the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to amend an air emissions standard for certain power
plants that are subject to emissions limitations under the
agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The bill
would affect power plants that generate electricity by burning
coal refuse (a waste byproduct of coal) as their primary fuel
source. Specifically, the bill would require the EPA to permit
operators of such plants to comply with an alternative
emissions standard for controlling acid gases that is less
stringent than the current MATS.
Using information from the EPA about current regulation of
hazardous air pollutants, CBO estimates that the costs of
modifying existing regulations to comply with H.R. 1119 would
be minimal and would not have a significant effect on the
agency's workload or spending.
Enacting H.R. 1119 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1119 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 1119 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jon Sperl. The
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to provide
for limited modifications to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS) to allow alternative compliance options for
coal refuse to energy facilities.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of
H.R. 1119 is known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, including any program that was included in a report to
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS
Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the
Committee finds that H.R. 1119 contains no earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, the Committee finds
that H.R. 1119 contains no directed rule makings.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 provides the short title of ``Satisfying Energy
Needs and Saving the Environment Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.
Section 2. Standards for coal refuse power plants
Section 2(a) provides definitions for the following terms:
administrator, boiler operating day, coal refuse, coal refuse
electric utility steam generating unit, coal refuse-fired
facility, and electric utility steam generating unit.
Section 2(b) provides an alternative compliance means for
Hydrogen Chloride and Sulfur Dioxide under the Mercury and Air
Toxics Standard for coal refuse electric utility steam
generating units.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
This legislation does not amend any existing Federal
statute.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We oppose H.R. 1119, the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and
Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act,'' which gives special
breaks and preferences under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to power
plants that use waste coal to generate electricity. These
preferences would allow them to emit more pollution than other
power plants, including other coal-fired facilities. The
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule is one of the most
important rules for protecting public health from toxic air
pollutants like mercury and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
H.R. 1119 directly undermines this important public health
regulation. The legislation would also prevent the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from strengthening
emission standards for these plants, even if future technology
could achieve lower emissions, or if clear evidence of harm to
public health or the environment is present.
BACKGROUND
Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to set technology-
based standards to reduce air toxics. These hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) are known or suspected to cause cancer and
other serious health effects, such as reproductive or birth
defects or neurological effects, as well as adverse
environmental effects. EPA rulemakings aim to reduce the
release of 187 HAPs including mercury, cadmium, lead, benzene,
and dioxin.\1\ EPA takes a technology-based approach to
regulating HAPs in order to achieve substantial reductions in
air toxics relatively quickly using readily available
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Environmental Protection Agency, About Air Toxics (https://
www.epa.gov/urban-air-toxics/about-urban-air-toxics) (accessed Jan. 9,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 112 requires EPA to develop regulations for
distinct source categories--like power plants--that set
specific emission limits based on levels already being achieved
by similar facilities. These regulations are known as Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, and the CAA
required EPA to complete them for all source categories by
2000. EPA sets minimum emissions levels, known as the MACT
floor, based on the best-performing sources in a category.
Power plants are by far the largest U.S. source of mercury
air pollution. They also release other heavy metals, such as
arsenic, chromium, and nickel, which can cause cancer and other
serious health effects. In 2012, EPA issued the MATS rule,
which established the first national standards to address power
plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution.\2\ The MATS
rule established MACT standards for HAPs emitted from coal- and
oil-fired power plants, limiting the emissions of heavy metals
and acid gases\3\ from these sources. To achieve these
reductions, the MATS rule set numeric emissions limits for
mercury, particulate matter (as a surrogate for other heavy
metals), and acid gases for all existing and new coal-fired and
oil-fired units. Existing sources had three years with the
possibility for a one year extension--or until April 2015 and
2016 respectively--to comply with the rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Environmental Protection Agency, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-
Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, 77 Fed.
Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012) (final rule) (www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-
02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf) (hereinafter ``MATS Final Rule'').
\3\Acid gases include compounds such as hydrochloric acid and
hydrofluoric acid.
\4\Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS) Basic Information (www.epa.gov/mats/basic-information-
about-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of groups submitted comments on the MATS rule
urging EPA to create a separate subcategory for waste coal
units.\5\ In the final MATS rule, EPA noted that HAP emissions
from waste coal units are not sufficiently different from
emissions from coal-fired power plants to warrant further
subcategorization.\6\ But in fact, waste coal facilities are
some of the best-performing units, and were used in setting the
MACT floor for the MATS rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See note 2, at 9396-9397.
\6\Id. at 9395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A subset of U.S. power plants burn waste coal as their
primary fuel source. This waste coal is a byproduct of coal
mining, physical coal cleaning, and other coal preparation
operations, containing matrix materials, clay and other organic
and inorganic materials.\7\ Waste coal is primarily found in
large piles near abandoned mines, and once burned the resulting
ashes are used in mine reclamation projects.\8\ The majority of
these power plants are in Pennsylvania; however, a few are
located in other states, including West Virginia and Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Id. at 9484.
\8\White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222, at 1250
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 15, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After EPA denied its petition to change the MATS rule for
waste coal burning plants, the Anthracite Region Independent
Power Producers Association challenged the agency's decision in
the D.C. Circuit. The case is still pending. In April the court
granted the Trump Administration's request for additional time
to consider the appeal so that EPA could reconsider its
position on the MATS rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\D.C. Circuit sides with Trump EPA, delays mercury litigation,
Greenwire (Apr. 28, 2017) (www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060053772/
).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF THE SENSE ACT
Section 2(b) of the SENSE Act relates to the treatment of
waste coal facilities under MATS. This section provides an
additional compliance option for the hydrogen chloride (HCl)
and SO2 standard, allowing waste coal facilities to
capture and control 93 percent of SO2 emissions.
This standard is weaker than the standard required of other
power plants.
Proponents argue that waste coal plants are unable to meet
the current HCl and SO2 limits and need an
alternative pathway to comply with the MATS rule. However,
existing technology is capable of meeting the standard.\10\ The
D.C. Circuit already rendered a decision on this argument,
rejecting the assertion that waste coal plants are incapable of
achieving these MATS requirements.\11\ Contrary to what is
alluded to in the majority's report, the CAA is not designed to
merely maintain the status quo. In setting up this program,
Congress intended for the law to push all facilities within an
industrial sector to make the necessary upgrades to reduce
their pollution in line with the best performing units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, at 2-8--2-9 (Dec. 2011)
(www3.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf).
\11\In response to questions during the February 3, 2016 hearing,
John Walke from the Natural Resources Defense Council explained ``when
the D.C. Circuit in its decision heard the full legal arguments from
the trade association for waste coal operators and looked at all the
evidence they presented and the evidence in the administrative record
that EPA had compiled, they squarely rejected those claims in a three
to nothing decision and that decision was left untouched by the Supreme
Court in that relevant Respect.'' House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Hearing on H.R. 3797, the
SENSE Act and H.R. __, the BRICK Act, 114th Cong (Feb. 3, 2016)
(democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/
hearing-on-hr-3797-the-satisfying-energy-needs-and-saving-the-0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not known how many facilities would opt for the new
compliance option envisioned in this bill, but the end result
is likely to be additional air pollution. The SENSE Act also
picks winners and losers. By giving waste coal facilities
license to pollute more than they should, it shifts the burden
of reducing emissions to other sources in the state, most
likely coal-fired units. Furthermore, the bill would lock in
this weaker standard for the foreseeable future. A small number
of waste coal units would be allowed to avoid controlling
harmful pollution in perpetuity, regardless of any subsequent
developments in control technologies or new information on the
health and environmental effects of their pollution.
CONCLUSION
We oppose H.R. 1119 and the legislative remedy offered by
this bill. It comes as no surprise that the majority is once
again offering legislation to undermine CAA regulations to
benefit coal-fired power plants at the expense of public
health. What is surprising is that the SENSE Act puts major
coal-fired plants at a disadvantage relative to waste coal
plants by granting them unnecessary and unwarranted regulatory
relief.
All of this is being done for no other reason than to
benefit approximately 20 waste coal plants that exist in a
handful of states. While these plants address one of coal's
major legacy problems--dangerous, polluting piles of coal mine
tailings from abandoned coal mining operations--cleanup of
these piles can and should be done without undue transfer of
mercury, SO2 and other pollutants from the land to
the air.
None of this is necessary. There are waste coal plants that
meet the MATS requirements today, and there is technology
available to enable waste coal plants to comply with the
requirements of this rule. There is no justification for
treating them differently from other coal-fired generation
facilities.
For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views
contained in the Committee's report.
Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Paul D. Tonko,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Environment.
[all]